European Parliament Elections

[The Artful Dodger]

Why were you campaigning solely against someone, rather than for anything? Feel a bit threatened by a potential Corbyn government? The middle class are really worried aren't they.

[Dr. Gonzo]

40 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said:

Why were you campaigning solely against someone, rather than for anything? Feel a bit threatened by a potential Corbyn government? The middle class are really worried aren't they.

There’s plenty of divisions in Labour and a whole lot of people really dislike Corbyn’s leadership of the party.

[The Artful Dodger]

23 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

There’s plenty of divisions in Labour and a whole lot of people really dislike Corbyn’s leadership of the party.

Typically the right-wing who are scared of an actual left-wing party, a lot of them in the London bubble who think Labour should represent the middle class more than working class. The type of person who likes to say 'I'm not a tory, I vote Labour' but has far more in common with the values of Conservative party than what Labour originally stood for. They should leave the party.

[SirBalon]

1 hour ago, The Artful Dodger said:

Why were you campaigning solely against someone, rather than for anything? Feel a bit threatened by a potential Corbyn government? The middle class are really worried aren't they.

Because he’s a charlatan searching for his personal Maxist utopia and has lied and deceived to try and accomplish it.

When he won the Labour leadership he made self propaganda by portraying himself as a democratic leader that is led by his members. He has ignored those members most notably in the latest manifesto for the EU Elections where he continued to play the ambiguity game by using deception for his real goal which is a General Election and playing the game of thrones. He isn’t interested in anything else and again deceived people further back when he campaigned for remain in 2016 when in truth he is a hard leaver for the only reason that to implement his utopia he requires the UK to be out of the EU.

The anti-semitism surrounding him and especially his party (because this is his party) is frankly disgusting and his support of terrorists is also something repugnant. What I don’t understand is why he doesn’t learn Latin America Spanish and try and become President of Venezuela.

He needs to step down or the London Labour voters and members will destroy him. He can’t live on the Labour Heartlands alone and needs the London vote but fundamentally he requires to be an MP and he now knows the score because great work was done to send the message. A message nobody thought possible.

As things stand with the possible merger of Change UK and the Lib Dems, Labour need to sort themselves out and I expect they will. Either Corbyn will put his tail between his legs and adhere to what he said he was back then or he will be ousted for the good of the party.

The target? Destroy Brexit, make it impossible to achieve and hopefully achieve a second referendum that won’t contain another fraudulent campaign from those that support Brexit and that also hopefully people won’t be turned away at the Polling Stations. Third world shitesters! 

[The Artful Dodger]

15 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

Because he’s a charlatan searching for his personal Maxist utopia and has lied and deceived to try and accomplish it.

When he won the Labour leadership he made self propaganda by portraying himself as a democratic leader that is led by his members. He has ignored those members most notably in the latest manifesto for the EU Elections where he continued to play the ambiguity game by using deception for his real goal which is a General Election and playing the game of thrones. He isn’t interested in anything else and again deceived people further back when he campaigned for remain in 2016 when in truth he is a hard leaver for the only reason that to implement his utopia he requires the UK to be out of the EU. 

The anti-semitism surrounding him and especially his party (because this is his party) is frankly disgusting and his support of terrorists is also something repugnant. What I don’t understand is why he doesn’t learn Latin America Spanish and try and become President of Venezuela.

He needs to step down or the London Labour voters and members will destroy him. He can’t live on the Labour Heartlands alone and needs the London vote but fundamentally he requires to be an MP and he now knows the score because great work was done to send the message. A message nobody thought possible. 

As things stand with the possible merger of Change UK and the Lib Dems, Labour need to sort themselves out and I expect they will. Either Corbyn will put his tail between his legs and adhere to what he said he was back then or he will be ousted for the good of the party.

The target? Destroy Brexit, make it impossible to achieve and hopefully achieve a second referendum that won’t contain another fraudulent campaign from those that support Brexit and that also hopefully people won’t be turned away at the Polling Stations. Third world shitesters! 

This is like something from the Telegraph. If you lap up that sort of stuff without researching it then I can't help you.

Corbyn is absolutely not a Marxist, even a cursory knowledge of Marxim could tell you that. He's about as close to the old Labour left of Benn,  Bevan, Castle etc as you can get. I get Londoners are really upset that something might threaten their cosy bubble, which has strangled the life out of the rest of the UK, but things aren't great for most of the country. Brexit is a symptom of something seriously wrong at the heart of our country, it's the free liberal economics which has seen London boom (at the expense of the poorest) but many towns rot. Labour under Corbyn are the only party offering an alternative to this, Farage is Thatcherite from his feet upwards, the Lib Dems are exactly the same as the Conservative Party.

If you fail to grasp wy Brexit happened then you're only condemning us to further, potentially violent, problems down the line. That's why, despite voting Remain, I realise we can't just overthrow it without some sort of compromise.

[RandoEFC+]

If the country still wants Brexit to happen, Leave would still win a second referendum. I acknowledge the moral issues with overruling the first referendum but the mandate for us trying to leave the EU is based off more than half of the voters saying that's what we should do.

Given that it's been confirmed that Vote Leave broke electoral law when they were campaigning and even then only managed to win by a few percent, without the majority of voters knowing that realistically, leaving the EU would probably be under the conditions of no deal, I don't think having a second confirmatory vote where the two options are less open to interpretation is a bad thing for the country.

Things would get nasty in some places if we have a second vote and Remain wins this time. Leave voters from the first referendum would feel rightly aggrieved and feel that the whole thing hasn't actually been decided by the public at all. There would probably be violence, and that's not what any of us want to see, but the fault lies in the original referendum being poorly planned (yes, captain hindsight I know) and not fought in a legal and fair manner.

A second referendum might be wrong in many ways but you have to do what's best for the country because you can't go back and change all of the wrong that's already gone. If Remain were to win this time then sorry to Leave voters but the country has changed its mind and the government need to know and need to listen. If Leave were to win again then it takes the ambiguity away and confirms that it's what the people want.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Farage: It's unfair to call me or my party "far-right"

Also Farage: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/29/brexit-party-said-talks-to-join-far-right-group-in-eu-parliament

 

[The Artful Dodger]

15 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

If the country still wants Brexit to happen, Leave would still win a second referendum. I acknowledge the moral issues with overruling the first referendum but the mandate for us trying to leave the EU is based off more than half of the voters saying that's what we should do.

Given that it's been confirmed that Vote Leave broke electoral law when they were campaigning and even then only managed to win by a few percent, without the majority of voters knowing that realistically, leaving the EU would probably be under the conditions of no deal, I don't think having a second confirmatory vote where the two options are less open to interpretation is a bad thing for the country.

Things would get nasty in some places if we have a second vote and Remain wins this time. Leave voters from the first referendum would feel rightly aggrieved and feel that the whole thing hasn't actually been decided by the public at all. There would probably be violence, and that's not what any of us want to see, but the fault lies in the original referendum being poorly planned (yes, captain hindsight I know) and not fought in a legal and fair manner.

A second referendum might be wrong in many ways but you have to do what's best for the country because you can't go back and change all of the wrong that's already gone. If Remain were to win this time then sorry to Leave voters but the country has changed its mind and the government need to know and need to listen. If Leave were to win again then it takes the ambiguity away and confirms that it's what the people want.

I'm not completely averse to a second referendum, though I do think a Norway style deal is the fairest compromise and is what we should have been striving for from the beginning

[SirBalon]

27 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said:

I'm not completely averse to a second referendum, though I do think a Norway style deal is the fairest compromise and is what we should have been striving for from the beginning

The issue with the Norway model is that it’s one foot in, one foot out. Plus they have FOM which is known to be the main issue Brexiters voted leave for.

Aside from xenophobia which we will ignore, the main issue with the Norway model is that you take every EU regulation and have no say on reform and have absolutely no power within the EU.

The Norwegian President said that the UK choosing their model instead of what we already have is totally insane. 

[The Artful Dodger]

1 hour ago, SirBalon said:

The issue with the Norway model is that it’s one foot in, one foot out. Plus they have FOM which is known to be the main issue Brexiters voted leave for.

Aside from xenophobia which we will ignore, the main issue with the Norway model is that you take every EU regulation and have no say on reform and have absolutely no power within the EU.

The Norwegian President said that the UK choosing their model instead of what we already have is totally insane. 

When you are getting out of the bath you place one foot out first. Most of your serious advocates for leaving the EU, and that means not the ones who jumped on it for a political ticket to fame and power, will tell you that exiting the EU successfully would be a long process. Perhaps upwards of 10 years, you can't go from being a member of something which you are deeply embedded to completely out within in one fell swoop. The Norway option would be a sensible start, it means the UK is no longer in the EU but remains closely tied, with some big benefits from it and obviously, for some, some drawbacks. The close nature of the referendum meant we should not be dismissing Remain as 'losers' so therefore unimportant, it means we should leave but in a way which reflects the nature of country's views. Norway was the closest to that. Now if the country wants to withdraw further over time then that is obviously possible, it gives people time to draw up a detailed and informed plan. Likewise, if the country wishes to retain its very close relationship, or possibly even rejoin, then that too is a possibility.

That was not even countenanced, May and her utterly ridiculous 'red lines' immediately cast aside our best hope of a successful Brexit and left us at the mercy of the ego drive no dealers and on the other side, those who would just like to revoke and pretend it never happened.

[Dr. Gonzo]

5 hours ago, The Artful Dodger said:

When you are getting out of the bath you place one foot out first. Most of your serious advocates for leaving the EU, and that means not the ones who jumped on it for a political ticket to fame and power, will tell you that exiting the EU successfully would be a long process. Perhaps upwards of 10 years, you can't go from being a member of something which you are deeply embedded to completely out within in one fell swoop. The Norway option would be a sensible start, it means the UK is no longer in the EU but remains closely tied, with some big benefits from it and obviously, for some, some drawbacks. The close nature of the referendum meant we should not be dismissing Remain as 'losers' so therefore unimportant, it means we should leave but in a way which reflects the nature of country's views. Norway was the closest to that. Now if the country wants to withdraw further over time then that is obviously possible, it gives people time to draw up a detailed and informed plan. Likewise, if the country wishes to retain its very close relationship, or possibly even rejoin, then that too is a possibility.

That was not even countenanced, May and her utterly ridiculous 'red lines' immediately cast aside our best hope of a successful Brexit and left us at the mercy of the ego drive no dealers and on the other side, those who would just like to revoke and pretend it never happened.

This is a far more sensible Brexit approach than anyone near government has suggested.

Yes, being in the EEA like Norway would leave Brexiteers and Remainers unsatisfied. But the referendum result guarantees that whatever happens with Brexit, a lot of Brexiteers and Remainers will be unsatisfied. But like you say, it's at least a framework where we can get benefits of EU membership, while also not being in the EU (which is what loads of Brexiteers promised in the first fucking place).

And again, like you say, at least it's a workable stopgap that wouldn't cause chaos and gives the country time to ultimately figure out what the fuck it's doing after it's no longer an EU member. Rather than creating mass confusion and bumbling around like idiots because there was no plan in the first place.

[SirBalon]

23 hours ago, The Artful Dodger said:

When you are getting out of the bath you place one foot out first. Most of your serious advocates for leaving the EU, and that means not the ones who jumped on it for a political ticket to fame and power, will tell you that exiting the EU successfully would be a long process. Perhaps upwards of 10 years, you can't go from being a member of something which you are deeply embedded to completely out within in one fell swoop. The Norway option would be a sensible start, it means the UK is no longer in the EU but remains closely tied, with some big benefits from it and obviously, for some, some drawbacks. The close nature of the referendum meant we should not be dismissing Remain as 'losers' so therefore unimportant, it means we should leave but in a way which reflects the nature of country's views. Norway was the closest to that. Now if the country wants to withdraw further over time then that is obviously possible, it gives people time to draw up a detailed and informed plan. Likewise, if the country wishes to retain its very close relationship, or possibly even rejoin, then that too is a possibility.

That was not even countenanced, May and her utterly ridiculous 'red lines' immediately cast aside our best hope of a successful Brexit and left us at the mercy of the ego drive no dealers and on the other side, those who would just like to revoke and pretend it never happened.

It wouldn't satisfy the majority of Brexiters at all. It would cause a civil incident for various reasons beginning with FOM which would have to be adhered to and the Customs Union combined with the Single Market.

I can go into detail on what each one of those entails but I won't because I'm astounded as to how little has been followed from all quarters on this but at the same time it doesn't surprise me in the slightest. The sentiment is a personal one!

Theresa May's WA has been slated not only by Remainers but more so by Brextiers because as far as they're concerned it makes the uK a subject state taking rules but not having any say in the making of those regulations. With the Norway model this is even intense plus having to accept FOM under the Single Market rules (not the Customs Union per say).

Brexiters in their majority right now, not at the start (because they were fed lies that the EU needed us more than we need them blah blah blah) were fed and believed in the Unicorns being sold (Boris Johnson is being sued for one of those lies, one of the many many lies) that the deal would be a tremendous one where we could leave but remain with the main benefits of being an EU member. That has now been digested by most and the majority want that shit stuff of WTO Terms which we would be the only nation on earth functioning solely under those rules (remember that 0% Tarifs offered to one must be offered to all and trade deals individually take upto 10 years ro organise)... Those pretending we would get a better WTO deal with individual nations compared to the EU which is 500 millions strong is hilarious. I'm starting to get tired now with writing this stuff...

In short. The Norway Deal + or have as many +++++++++++++s as you want will still have a divided uK.

Fuck it... Seriously bored now. Won't go on. Type too much during the day anyway.

Maintain... It's one foot in, one foot out with no say but taking it up the arse from the EU.

 

 

Oh... The bit about it not going too well and then in the future deciding to rejoin... Bloody hell! Does anyone here really think the EU would offer us the deal we managed to get over 30 years ago on not having to belong to the single currency? Plus so much more.

[Dr. Gonzo]

53 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

In short. The Norway Deal + or have as many +++++++++++++s as you want will still have a divided UK.

Brexit is going to keep dividing the country until the dust has well and truly settled and it's not the focal point of British politics. And it'll be the focal point for a while to come most likely, because as has previously been stated - whatever outcome occurs, we're guaranteed to see large swathes of the country upset with the result.

I don't think there's any possible outcome where you're not going to have a divided UK, that's just the nature of the issue. Look how close the referendum was and look at how close a projected new referendum would be. It's a very polarising issue - even amongst Brexiteers, it's probably the most polarising issue I've ever seen in UK politics in my entire life. We're much more likely to see more semblance of unity when this is all over.

[SirBalon]

6 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Brexit is going to keep dividing the country until the dust has well and truly settled and it's not the focal point of British politics. And it'll be the focal point for a while to come most likely, because as has previously been stated - whatever outcome occurs, we're guaranteed to see large swathes of the country upset with the result.

I don't think there's any possible outcome where you're not going to have a divided UK, that's just the nature of the issue. Look how close the referendum was and look at how close a projected new referendum would be. It's a very polarising issue - even amongst Brexiteers, it's probably the most polarising issue I've ever seen in UK politics in my entire life. We're much more likely to see more semblance of unity when this is all over.

I couldn't give a damn about polarisation considering Brexit damages the country in every way with a no deal being the worst. A government is employed by the people to do what's best for the country and we have already seen major corporations leave and threaten to leave th uK due to Brexit or the uncertainty of Brexit. There are only facts, facts are what count and nothing else as I posted in my previous laborious comment where I got bored mate.

Staying in thr EU is the best outcome but IF Brexit HAS to be implemented, then as a remainer the Norway model is the one that I would choose. If FOM is abolished, I will leave the country of my birth because I am blessed with dual nationality (thanks to my late father) as is my son because I made it so due to being born AFTER the referendum.  Nigel Farage has done the same with his children by giving thek dual British ans German nationlity... Need I go any further?

Fuck them mate! Fuck the Brexiters! If they are incapable of understanding logic and facts, fuck them.

[Dr. Gonzo]

21 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

Fuck them mate! Fuck the Brexiters! If they are incapable of understanding logic and facts, fuck them.

That might be true of many of the Brexit voters, but people like Rees-Mogg and Farage are disaster capitalists looking to make some easy money in the aftermath of Brexit.

You're lucky about the dual nationality thing though. I could get dual citizenship here once I'm married, but I'm hoping that within a year or two (or three) I'll either be back in the UK or somewhere in Europe, so I don't see the point to a US passport.

[SirBalon]

24 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

That might be true of many of the Brexit voters, but people like Rees-Mogg and Farage are disaster capitalists looking to make some easy money in the aftermath of Brexit.

But yet those you've mentioned are a number of individuals more in that scoundrel gang, they say THEY are fighting against the establishment in favour of those that have been castigated by successive governments of every ideological spectrum, especially THEM!

[The Artful Dodger]

I think SirBalon is wrapped in guilt because he is one of the imbeciles that he is so vehemently condemning. He voted brexit. It is too late now, you're one of them forever. 

[6666]

Admitting that you got it wrong is a good trait to have. Better than knowing you're wrong but desperately refusing to admit it or just being plain stupid and not knowing you were wrong.

[The Artful Dodger]

42 minutes ago, 6666 said:

Admitting that you got it wrong is a good trait to have. Better than knowing you're wrong but desperately refusing to admit it or just being plain stupid and not knowing you were wrong.

True but then having the audacity to insult others is a bit rich. It's the convert turned zealot, trying to make up desperately what for they've been.

[SirBalon]

2 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said:

True but then having the audacity to insult others is a bit rich. It's the convert turned zealot, trying to make up desperately what for they've been.

You do have a point because it's been proven that anyone coming to terms with a serious past error tends to be very partisan in his or her approach when acting upon their new found realisation of the truth (or that which they deem to be the truth). I won't deny that!

But I back myself up with the fact I'm right and that I can't comprehend how others haven't managed to do the same.

[The Artful Dodger]

I find it easier to just accept that there is no hope, humanity is fundamentally unpleasant, selfish and wicked. Just try to make the best of the pleasant people you find in life and ignore society in general.

[SirBalon]

2 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said:

I find it easier to just accept that there is no hope, humanity is fundamentally unpleasant, selfish and wicked. Just try to make the best of the pleasant people you find in life and ignore society in general.

I am more optimistic about the new generations but I am with you on the older folk set in their ways when it's difficult to change or to realise things by acting upon them. Look at our younger generations and how concerned they are with everything ethical and social like with climate change fo example. Even going into this Brexit issue the massive majority are inclusive and internationalist in every aspect and want to be a part of what surrounds them. I do have hope!

[Dr. Gonzo]

Going back to Corbyn, I like him ideologically... but I fully understand why Labour voters are disillusioned with his leadership of the party. Corbyn could have really capitalised on political momentum if the Labour party leadership hadn't spent months contradicting each other and refusing to take an explicit position on Brexit. It's like their advisors has said "well this is a very polarising issue, let's wait until we can see what the country wants before we take a stance" - and the country still has no idea what it wants, in all honesty, and honestly the electorate is in need of some leadership in terms of policy from our political leaders.

By sitting on the fence, Labour lost a big chunk of the 40% that voted for Corbyn and Labour in 2017 - remainers on the left are turning to Green, in centre-left they're turning to Lib Dem.

And smelling Corybn's blood, Blairite Labour are determined to oust Corbyn, or undermine him at every step. This internal row is going to tear the party apart. It also does wonders to stop the momentum Labour gained by returning to its roots after the Blaire/Gordon years. Corbynistas and Blairites need to be called out by party members - Blairites for abandoning the core party principles in the first place; Corbynistas (which I love saying more than Corbynite for some reason) for squandering Labour's polling advantage because of Corbyn's soft-Brexit position.

I'll never vote Lib Dem again in a general election, I did one time ever and I've regretted it ever since. But unless Green can come up with a credible socialist platform, I'll probably be forced to vote for a Labour party where I've got increasingly diminishing faith in the party leadership - and it's not like I had much faith in Corbyn two years ago. The Local Elections are when the party should have realised they were in crisis and that their support had drastically eroded. Since then, we've had little clarity about the party's position over Brexit and we've got Labour leadership and MPs openly squabbling.

And honestly, it's astoundingly weak leadership. It's pretty fucking clear to anyone, even the most deluded and blind, that the biggest issue to UK voters right now is Brexit. What the people want is a party that's offering clarity. Labour isn't offering clarity. It's offering ambiguity, and soundbites about austerity. Which isn't to say austerity isn't a big issue for the UK... but it's just so delusional to not take an actual stance on Brexit while prattling on about what is now a secondary issue to the electorate that would typically care about austerity.

And I don't think Corbyn is an anti-Semite, but I've maintained - it's incredibly weak leadership that he's been able to come out strongly to the public and say that anti-Semitism has never been tolerated in Labour, nor will it ever be. He's also been unable to really call out the Hard Brexiteers about their delusions, because while he's clearly for Brexit he's not for no deal. But instead he'll just tweet about austerity over and over.

Like I said, he's ideologically he's sound. But he's an abysmal leader and I don't think he reads the political pulse of the country very well. Which is worrying if you're leading one of the country's big parties. Labour should not be in crisis while the Tories are cannibalising their own party, yet here we are.

[Honey Honey]

On 30/05/2019 at 12:05, SirBalon said:

The Norwegian President said that the UK choosing their model instead of what we already have is totally insane. 

Norway doesn't have a President. Are you able provide evidence the Prime Minister made the claims you state? 

[SirBalon]

8 minutes ago, Harvsky said:

Norway doesn't have a President. Are you able provide evidence the Prime Minister made the claims you state? 

https://www.politico.eu/article/norwegian-pm-uk-cannot-cherry-pick-eu-membership/amp/